Binders. The world has gone mad.

PS I am not doctor . Maybe binders do physical harm, although I doubt it.

There is a lot of difference between flattening a fat tummy and restricting the development of adolescent breasts. The breasts include fat tissue, but they also contain much besides.

I was a teenager in the fifties. I had no need of one of those girdles, neither did any girl I knew. We had flat tummies, because we had just lived through rationing and hadn't been fed like foie gras on sugar and fat. They were for grown women who had had babies - and whoever told Trisher they were designed to conceal the mons pubis had no notion of anatomy. The mons pubis was in no danger of being on show in the skirts that most girls/women wore or the slacks sported by some.

The idea that wearing a binder is similar to taking drugs or accessing porn is ridiculous.
Ridiculing people's answers is rather risky when you post some utter nonsense yourself, trisher. It's perhaps wiser to remain courteous, even when irritated at having your arguments exposed for what they are.

The point, of course, was that many activities are considered acceptable (or are tolerated) for adults, but not for children, which is why there are protections in place. If we have a demand-driven retail sector, which you seemed to be advocating, these restrictions would not apply, and it would be a free-for-all. I wondered whether this is, indeed, what you would prefer to see, or whether you accept that children need more protection than adults.

It's a commercial operation just like all the other organisations selling binders on line. There are lockers where you can collect stuff ordered on line without any contact wiith anyone. They are in most shopping centres. By all means object to binders if you wish but stop pretending the service offered by Lush is any worse than that offered by all the other suppliers of binders.

It is not we who are pretending anything. Children can't access locker services, as buying things to be delivered to them would require a credit/debit card or an account with PayPal or similar, which is not available to under 18s. Even pre-paid cards can be set so that parents are notified when children spend on them (for good reason, arguably).

Pretending that lockers are equivalent to an anonymous collection service in an innocuous-seeming store is disingenuous at best.

The mons pubis was in no danger of being on show in the skirts that most girls/women wore or the slacks sported by some.

By the time mini skirts came along no-one young enough to wear one would have been wearing a corset/girdle!
That's why tights were invented.

Anyway, mini skirts then weren't as short as some of the belts worn now

The Lush chain is not in loco parentis and is encouraging young girls to be behind their parents' backs and go down a route fraught with danger which needs professional help.

They are not doctors, not psychologists nor professional in any way.
They're a chain of shops selling over-priced, over-scented cosmetics.

Should have grammar-checked before I posted but I'm in a rush, sorry

Miniskirts were after the fifties, as I remember. By the end of the decade, teenagers had been invented, so clothes began to be less matronly, but my main memory of skirts at that time was of pretty staid lengths. Pelmets displaying all, with thick tights, were a sixties style, and I suspect those who wore the really short ones were not trying too hard to conceal their Mount of Venus.

Elegran the idea that all teenagers in the 50s were slim and had flat tummies is ridiculous. It didn't matter anyway some mothers stuck their daughters in girdles, some didn't. The reason they were needed was skirts like these, which pulled tight across the tummy. The mons pubis was disguised because the girdle covered it. Of course some girls didn't wear them but some did. Just like chest binders.

Of course girdles were rejected. Fashion changed in the 60s. The same will happen again. Each generation thinks the things that were 'cool' to their elders are really unacceptable and rejects them. If this really is a fad as some seem to think then it will just disappear like fads do.
I seem too remember it being said not too long ago that the accepted present for a rich US 16 year old was a nose job and breast enhancement. That seems to be changing.

The ones you knew must have had enormous montes pubes then. The slimmest of skirts would not have bulged over mine or any of the girls I knew (and yes, I did wear slim skirts, but without a girdle. A suspender belt to keep up my stockings was enough.)

I assume you remember these yourself, Trisher and are not just going by the artists' impressions on sewing patterns - notorious for being detached from what the finished garment actually looked like.

I wasn't around then - I was a loons and cheesecloth girl - but if I had worn those skirts as a teenager it would have been to show off my waist and bum, not to hide anything.

Those were the days, [sigh].

Regardless, they would cause no harm, unlike breast binders, which can cause long and short-term problems:

Common side effects of chest binding
76-78% of people in studies reported skin/tissue problems, like tenderness, scarring, swelling, itching, infections
74-75% of people reported pain in chest, shoulders, back or abdomen
51-52% of people reported respiratory problems (like shortness of breath)
47-49% of people reported musculoskeletal symptoms, like postural changes, muscle wasting, or rib fractures (2,3)

from Clue, which seems to be an advisory service for young women.

Do you have a source for that statement about girdles being designed to hide the mons pubis, Trisher?

And, Doodledog, the girdle was designed to streamline and accentuate the waist and bum, not to hide anything, and not to be restrictive. A chest binder, now, is designed to restrict the bust, for whatever reason.

Oh yes, I know. My mum wore them throughout my childhood, with suspenders on them.

I was responding to the idea that people wore them to conceal their anatomy and to simultaneously allow them to wear skirts that would show off their figures.

I can’t pretend I’ve read every post, but has anyone mentioned that binders were used 100 years ago? Those shift dresses in the 1920s needed a boyish, straight-up-and-down figure. They didn’t hang well on curves. My mother was young in the 1920s and remembered people binding their chests to flatten them. Probably not at extremely young ages though.

I had Liberty bodices. They were not a wrapover style, just ordinary vest shape. Very cosy with their fleecy lining. I suppose we didn’t wear them in summer.

Girls in their teens would not have worn the flapper dresses until they were "out" at 18 or so.

Women squeezing into foundation garments to look good in the fashion of the day is not remotely the same as children binding budding breasts to stop them from growing - that is simply a diversion from the issue. It happens on these threads.

Flapper dresses are not in vogue anyway, and a 12 year old who didn't want to look womanly could hide her developing figure under a hoodie or baggy shirt and look like plenty of others who wear that look.

It is much more likely that a girl using a binder is doing so in the hope of stopping her breasts developing than to 'streamline' her figure to make a dress look good.

What is the obsession of this board with conforming to the gender you are born into?

Has to be the most nonsensical post I’ve read on here.

Elegran

Do you have a source for that statement about girdles being designed to hide the mons pubis, Trisher?

Oh yes I’m sure trisher does. Any number of people have said it.

Doodledog

You wore them over your vest.

They were just another layer of warmth on the days before central heating.

The buttons were just to fasten them, and the tapes tied the wrapover layer. Like this.

eek !
that looks hideous to me, reminiscent of a strait-jacket.
wish i hadn't asked. i am sensitive to impressions.
still can't see the point. why not wear an extra vest or t-shirt.
instead of some strange hideous garment.
totally non-liberty. what a misnomer.
sorry to those who liked it. i'm glad i never saw one til now.

Elegran

Girls in their teens would not have worn the flapper dresses until they were "out" at 18 or so.

Well a certain class of girl wouldn't, but most working class girls left school at 14 and were buying their own clothes. They undoubtedly wore what was fashionable. Flappers could be very young en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flapper
By November 1910, the word was popular enough for A. E. James to begin a series of stories in the London Magazine featuring the misadventures of a pretty fifteen-year-old girl and titled "Her Majesty the Flapper".[14] By 1911, a newspaper review indicates the mischievous and flirtatious "flapper" was an established stage-type.[15]
So young girls were binding their breasts then.

i think we have drifted into the bye-ways of fashion history away from the more serious consideration of issues re children and the influence of the whole aggressive trans lobby.
the keira bell story sums up some of the ethical issues.
www.transgendertrend.com/keira-bell-interview-reconsidering-journey/

trisher

Elegran

Girls in their teens would not have worn the flapper dresses until they were "out" at 18 or so.

Well a certain class of girl wouldn't, but most working class girls left school at 14 and were buying their own clothes. They undoubtedly wore what was fashionable. Flappers could be very young en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flapper
By November 1910, the word was popular enough for A. E. James to begin a series of stories in the London Magazine featuring the misadventures of a pretty fifteen-year-old girl and titled "Her Majesty the Flapper".[14] By 1911, a newspaper review indicates the mischievous and flirtatious "flapper" was an established stage-type.[15]
So young girls were binding their breasts then.

Oh, for goodness' sake, trisher. You really will invent any theory you can to back up your increasingly batty claims.

It is remotely possible that some 12 year old girls in 1910 (the school leaving age didn't rise to 14 until 1918) would have the money to buy clothes, and that of those, some would have the time, knowledge and inclination to bind their breasts to fit into the flapper dresses that they could wear at all the cocktail parties that working class pre-teens went to, but on the whole they would go into service and have a half day off a month, or stay at home and help their mothers with the other children.

That is really not relevant to the Lush binder issue though. This is not 1910, or even 2010, and this is not about party dresses or pencil skirts. It is about children trying to prevent their bodies from developing because of the notion that they are 'in the wrong body', and about a high street store colluding with the company that is profiteering from their confusion.

To suggest that it is ok for this to be going on behind the backs of their parents, however tricky it would be for them to deal with it is deluded, as the Keira Bell case demonstrates on welbeck's link.

I think it is always helpful to look at historical patterns and there is no doubt that women have restricted their bodies for various reasons at different times. This huge panic over girls wearing chest binders will pass.

I am so tired of the single case of Keira Bell being brought up all the time. Mistakes are made in everything, it's regretful and terrible for the person concerned, but just as a mistake in a surgical procedure does not mean that operation is abandoned completely, one transgender mistake should not mean the whole transgender community is attacked or that all transgender people regret their change. It is in any case a developing process.

Lots of things go on behind the backs of the parents of teenagers. It happens. It isn't entirely a bad thing. It's part of growing up. It would be great if every teenager who questioned their gender identity had parents who would help them explore and examine their situation, but the fact is that some parents will simply shut down the debate. Desperate teens resort to far more dangerous ways of flattening their curves, for them being able to pick up a binder from Lush is a safer option. This idea that it is always wrong to go behind a parent's back relies on the concept that all parents are supportive, unfortunately they aren't.

Actually some people look for historical patterns to use as excuses for anything.
Why are you sick of Keira Bell being brought up. It’s the beginning of what will probably be an historical pattern, and more likely to be so if more thought and care isn’t put into protecting children from the danger of too early life damaging surgery, drugs or other practices, especially those supported as a money making exercise.
How can you think is it right to allow young children to leap into changes which could well render them infertile or damaged for life, before they are even old enough to legally have sexual intercourse.

Keira Bell is not the only case, though. If you listen to the Stephen Nolan podcasts you will hear examples of others. Episode 5 is the one about children transitioning.

Of course it is true that not all children confide in their parents about everything - in fact I'd be surprised if many do, and it's not necessarily always a bad thing. Children need to learn how to think for themselves and make mistakes before they leave home, or they'd be doing it for the first time when they are on their own.

That is not the point, though. Just because something happens doesn't make all instances of its happening right, or mean that it should be encouraged to continue. Also, we are not talking about 16 year olds taking the pill, or drinking cider in the park. These are pubescent children.

It's bad enough that schools are teaching that there are over 100 genders, although if the DofE follows the BBC that may soon stop, but if 10 year olds who are already confused by this are getting pandered to by cosmetics companies their confusion is likely to get worse, and as long as consultants are persuaded/coerced into thinking that any child who presents with body image issues is potentially transexual the number of regrettable and terrible cases will proliferate. Again, the position of the medical profession is discussed in episode 5 of the podcasts. I really recommend that you listen to them with an open mind. They are not pushing one 'side' or another, and participants are given time to put their case in their own way without the interruption that usually happens on TV and radio interviews.